The structural-functional approach is derived from earlier uses of functionalism
and systems models in anthropology, sociology, biology, and political science.
Structural functionalism became popular around 1960 when it became clear
that ways of studying U.S. and European politics were not useful in studying
newly independent countries, and that a new approach was needed. Structural-functionalism
assumes that a bounded (nation-state) system exists, and studies structures
in terms of their function(s) within the system. For structural functionalists
the question to be answered is what does a structure (guerrilla movement,
political party, election, etc.) do within the political system (of country
x)? The goal is to find out what something actually does in a political
system, as opposed to what it is supposed to do. Thus, structural functionalists
would not waste time studying constitutions in Third World countries if
they found that the constitutions [structures] had little impact on political
reality.

Almond claimed that certain political functions existed in all political
systems. On the input side he listed these functions as: political socialization,
political interest articulation, political interest aggregation, and political
communication. Listed as outputs were rule-making, rule implementation,
and rule adjudication. Other basic functions of all political systems included
the conversion process, basic pattern maintenance, and various capabilities
(distributive, symbolic, etc.). Structural functionalists argued that all
political systems, including Third World systems, could most fruitfully
be studied and compared on the basis of how differing structures performed
these functions in the various political system.

Structural functionalism is based on a systems model. Conceptually,
the political process can be depicted as follows:

For analytical purposes the political system is considered to be the
nation-state, and the environment is composed of the interactions of economic,
social, and political variables and events, both domestic and external.
The idea is that there are a number of actors in the national political
system (political parties, bureaucracies, the military, etc.) and that
the actions of all these actors affect each other as well as the system.
The political analyst must determine the importance of these actors in
a particular political system. This is done by analyzing the functions
performed by the various actors. Any changes in the system also affect
all the actors. The feedback mechanisms allow for constantly changing inputs,
as actors react to outputs.

Structural functionalists, like systems analysts, have a bias toward
systemic equilibrium, (ie toward stability). Such a bias tends to make
this approach conservative, as stability, or evolutionary change, is preferred
[and more easily analyzed], to radical, or revolutionary change. A problem
which arises with this system-based model is that the nation-state's boundaries
are often permeable in the real world, rather than being the neatly bounded
nation-state conceptualized by structural functionalists. In other words,
in the real world it is usually difficult to state exactly what the boundaries
are, leading to some conceptual difficulties. For example, some international
actors are only intermittent, such as the U.S. when it intervenes directly
in Haitian or Panamanian politics. Should U.S. military forces be considered
a part of the Panamanian or Haitian political systems?

&nbsp

STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONALISM AND HISTORICAL SEQUENCES OF CRISES

The structural functional approach provides a useful framework for categorizing
and comparing data, but has been criticized as being essentially static.
It was not very useful for analyzing or predicting change; the issue of
why, how, when, and in what direction, political development occurs. This
issue of development, or change, is, of course, crucial for the Third World.

In response to criticisms, structural functionalists looked at history
and concluded that political development takes place when an existing political
system is unable to cope with problems or challenges confronting it without
further structural differentiation or cultural secularization. Success
at meeting such challenges constitutes political development. By challenges,
Almond meant changes in the size, content, and frequency of inputs (especially
demands) for the system. For structural functionalists:

Political Development is defined as increased structural differentiation
and increased cultural secularization.

Structural functionalists argued that, historically, there have been
four major challenges to political systems, and that the challenges have
occurred in the following sequence (in the West).

(Perhaps a fifth, international penetration, should be added to the
list. The agents of international penetration would include: other nations,
international organizations, multinational corporations, prominent individuals,
ideological movements, guerrillas, militaries, and technological sources
such as radio broadcasts.)

In Europe the challenges occurred separately, and were handled one at
a time. Thus, the problem of state-building (road construction, tax system,
boundaries)) was usually solved before the problem of nation-building (transferring
of primary political loyalty to the national ruler, and away from the local
or regional leader) became acute. The challenge of participation was solved
by the gradual extension of the vote and political rights to non-propertied
people, trade unionists, all males, and finally, to women. The problem
of distribution is still a challenge. The question of how to divide up
the goods of society has not yet been fully solved, although there seems
to be a movement in the direction of more equality in distribution.

The Third World is experiencing a fundamentally different pattern of
challenge occurrence. In the Third World the challenges are occurring simultaneously.

In many cases "solutions" to historic systemic challenges
in the West have been accompanied by violence and strong systemic resistance.
(Extension of participation rights to workers; U.S. Civil Rights movement
of 1960s) In Third World nations all the challenges are occurring simultaneously,
and demands for solutions are putting severe pressure on national political
systems. From a structural functionalist point of view, the amount of violence
and instability sometimes observed in Third World politics should, therefore,
come as no surprise.